Anarchism is an average introduction to the ideology of anarchism. It main strength is also its main weakness – the weaving together of contemporary thinkers with the fathers of Anarchism. I was thankful for some leads for my thesis – especially those promoting some reflections on doctrine of humanity and the view of human nature that underpins various political ideologies. Anarchism still has much to teach us about us the underlying assumptions of liberalism and capitalism.

The Godless Constitution is a polemical work targeting those who claim America as a Christian Country. Using historical evidence they try to demolish the argument that America was founded as a Christian nation. On the face of it they seem pretty convincing, but the authors do not address directly those who would claim otherwise. While this is not the scope of the book, not doing so leaves some doubt about the other sides of the argument. Nevertheless it is worth reading, and made me wonder if such explicit statements exist about the secular founding of New Zealand. Historians in this part seem more focused on the evidence of a bi-cultural country, than a religious or secular one.

The prayer used at the start of sessions of New Zealand’s parliament is back in the news. The timing has played perfectly into the hands of the Destiny Church, who the day before protested an interfaith gathering at Waitangi. The first media release on the issue (this time around) has come from Destiny (Leave Parliament Prayer Alone), in which they write:

Bishop Brian Tamaki says a political move to extract the Christian prayer from Parliament is an affront to a tradition that has been honoured in over 143 years of Parliament practice.
…
“This is exactly the reason why I, and thousands of others, rallied at Waitangi two days ago to protect our Christian Heritage from politicians with a set agenda to extract those elements of Christianity from our judicial, political and social arrangements. What are they going to target next, our National Anthem?” says Bishop Tamaki.

Members of Parliament have been written to by the Speaker of the House asking their view of the prayer, whether it should be retained and, if so, whether the wording should be changed. This time around there have not been many church leaders oppose the removal or alteration of the prayer.

Here is the current text of the prayer:

Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquility of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Contrary to the near universal Christian support for the prayer, I believe that there are several good theological reasons why it should be removed.

The church, or God for that matter, does not need favours of the state. Removal of the prayer does not diminish the truth of the gospel or the sovereignty of God. To vehemently protest the removal of the prayer makes the church appear needy and dependent on public ritual for its survival.

The prayer, spoken as a habit by those who do not believe it, causes them to take the Lord’s name in vain and break the Decalogue (Exodus 20:7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name). The prayer is read out as a procedure, it is not necessarily taken seriously but those reading it, and Jesus Christ is not the Lord of many parliamentarians. It further devalues prayer by making it something done as a formal procedure, not part of communal Christian worship or one’s individual relationship to God.

The prayer mentions setting aside personal gain. While it could be argued that the prayer serves a useful purpose in reminding politicians of their duties to all New Zealanders when passing laws, the public, based on years of disappointment, does not trust them to do so. The prayer heaps religious hypocrisy onto political expediency. Jesus is demeaned by his name being associated with systematic abuse of public trust by politicians.

I believe that those like the Maxim Institute and Destiny Church who wish to cling to the prayer and other vestiges of Christendom are clutching at straws. They have so little faith in God and the church that their faith is placed in shallow and meaningless public scraps of religiosity which are a pale imitation of the real thing.

They would do well to remember Matthew 7:21:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

It is more than words that count. Saying a prayer will not ensure that God’s will be fulfilled.

The Government issued a statement quoting Winnie Laban, a Presbyterian Labour MP, saying:

“New Zealand is a society of many faiths and beliefs. As a Christian, I believe we need to discuss having a prayer that is inclusive and reflects our country’s religious diversity,” said Laban.

Perhaps the Government is cynically using her Christian status to placate Christians who may think that the move to change the prayer is an anti-Christian move by secular humanists.

May 28 saw the opening of The Creation Museum in Kentucky, USA. This is just down the road from Dayton, OH, where I was a few months ago. Sadly it wasn’t open then, but next time I’ll be sure to pop in. It cost $27million to build and it claims to bring the pages of the bible to life. Cool!

The PCANZ report that they will leave The Churches’ Agency on Social Issues. I hope the motivation isn’t money savings alone. Having worked for CASI and its predecessor (the Joint Methodist Presbyterian Public Questions Committee) for several years (1996 to 2001) I have plenty of thoughts and feelings about the move of my Church. It’s tough being involved and caring about the Church’s witness while being a former employee, since one is inevitably viewed with suspicion – something that I doubt applies to those truly committed (i.e. ordained). This is what their newsletter said on the issue:

The withdrawal of the Presbyterian Church from the Churches Agency on Social Issues (CASI)
Towards the end of last year, the Council of Assembly was made aware of issues relating to CASIâ€™s ongoing planning and organisation. These issues included: the difficulty in long-term planning when funding for CASI was determined on a year to year basis by the Presbyterian Church; (which funds around $35,000 of CASI activity, representing about three quarters of CASIâ€™s budget) the difficulty of recruiting Presbyterian members to the CASI executive, and communications and functional difficulties associated with a shift of the Presbyterian Church Assembly Office into smaller offices which could not accommodate CASI staff.

The review process that followed led the Council to conclude that there were more effective ways for the Presbyterian Church to engage with the social issues impacting on the lives of church members and the people of the communities they serve.

The Presbyterian Church has now notified CASI member churches (Methodists, Associated Churches of Christ and the Society of Friends (Quakers)) of their intention to withdrawal from CASI at the end of the current financial year.

The change represents a recommitment by the Presbyterian Church to actively engage with the Biblical mandate for justice and peace by:

Enhancing communication with ecumenical and church social service agencies and with others who are active in providing an ethical, social and economic critique on social trends from a Christian perspective.

Working with parishes to develop skills that will allow them to better communicate their work and life to their communities.

Developing Biblically and theologically based resources from a breadth of theological perspectives that will enable parishes to reflect, pray and act in response to social issues. These will be resources that we hope will have a mission focus – supporting an engagement with people who may be seeking to know more about the particular ways faith leads us to engage with issues of social concern.

Working to support the Moderatorâ€™s response on behalf of the Church to matters of general social concern.

Some of this initiative will centre upon the churchâ€™s communication team â€“ but already we are working to establish a network of people with the skills and interest who may be willing to help contribute to these processes.

The Council has not taken this action lightly nor without a significant acknowledgement of the great contribution made by people from both the Presbyterian Church and other member Churches to this work of social engagement on our behalf. We will continue to look for ways to enhance our ecumenical relationships and, of course, with well over 100 parishes working as Uniting congregations, an ecumenical commitment is an everyday reality for many with a Presbyterian heritage.

If you have questions or concerns about this decision to withdraw from CASI, or have suggestions or offers of help in relation to the Presbyterian Churchâ€™s engagement with social issues, then please contact me.

Unfortunately I think this is a backward step for the Church and will lead to its further marginalisation in society. Some things we did that required major time commitments were:

Things like this will not happen without serious time involvement and administration. While communications is important, training in communications is no substitute for theological reflection on social issues and the distillation of all the Church has to offer in public debate and service. In a time when there needs to be serious theological input to counter the sound bites of the Christian Right, the PCANZ seems to want to join with them in a public relations focussed witness.

Last night I went to the first Presbyterian Research Network meeting. Rev Dr Susan Jones gave a talk about theological training in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand. She discussed the idea that theological training in the university is disjointed from personal formation for ministry. The alternative, of having theological training solely in seminaries, would have grave implications for the authenticity of lay theological training. Where would I stand? Would my training be suspect?

Such questions prompted me to look at famous lay theologians in history to show that my intended vocation is valid and that one can be a theologian without being an ordained minister or priest. What did I find?

Wikipedia has a category for Lay theologians. Not an impressive list. Nor was this (from Gemma Tulud Cruz) uplifting: “When lay theologians graduate, the next problem they have to contend with is marginalization with regard to job opportunities or in their status as theology teachers.

But here are some I can admire and look up to (even I don’t agree with everything they wrote):

I saw this ad on a Christian site and I was a little taken aback at the slogan “FOR GOD AND COUNTRY”. It is saying that the army exists for God and Country? I’d think that God and country are opposing commitments and that patriotism is anti-Christ, as Tolstoy did in Christianity and Patriotism.

News today that Caritas Welcomes Defeat Of Easter Trading Bill. No surprises there, but their media release is curious for a couple of reasons. First is their criticism of the devolution of the law to local government. I would have thought that this was in line with the Catholic social teaching of Subsidiarity.

Secondly there is no theological reasoning in the release, just that it is good for families.While I agree with that (on balance, after all Easter trading will be good for some families too), is there not some Catholic tradition to draw on, rather than repeat something that a trade union could just as easily say?

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=r06c-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0385516479&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr&npa=1I have just finished reading The Theocons: Secular American Under Seige by Damon Linker. While an interesting read, with valuable insights into the thinking of some theocons (especially Neuhaus), it didn’t really live up to it’s name. Secular America is not under seige – the theocons do not want to get rid of democracy or establish a church. For example, wanting to change abortions laws is not undemocratic. Nor is America secular. They may have no state religion, but religion plays a major part in Americans’ self-understanding and public life already, and has done for years. This book is another example of the confusion between liberalism and democracy that I criticise in my unpublished essay on the subject.

Once again this Eastertide there have been the inevitable questions about the inconsistencies of New Zealand’s Easter trading laws. It happens every year. Shop keepers and right wing politicians complain about the laws keeping some shops closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Unions and church “leaders” seek to protect workers and the their holy days.

I support more holidays and breaks for workers. I think it is a bad argument made by some that families need to be able to shop together to be together over Easter. This elevates consumers over retailers, who must be away from their families to serve others.

On the other hand it is worrying that the churches makes arguments that are indistinguishable from those of unions. Surely our theological traditions are richer than that? But if theology was used it would still be sill be in support of the trading bans. It is as though God needs favours from parliament. Yeah Right! Why assume that Christian holidays need the support of the state? In some ways the churches are seeking through the state and its law-making apparatus ways of making it easier for Christians to behave like Christians. They probably fear that people will not take leave on Good Friday to attend worship should it not be a national holiday.

Churches need to do some theology rather than jump on secular bandwagons. Otherwise they find those wagons taking them into unfamiliar and disturbing territory.